Nearly thirty years after their design, Cecil Doty singled out three
visitor centers he disliked Chaco Canyon, Grand Teton and Yellowstone
and declared he "would never do them again." [1] Doty attributed these failures to the lack of available
funds. In a general way, the entire Mission 66 program could be excused
on this basis, since the goal was to build as many visitor centers for
as low cost as possible. The "assembly-line" mentality could hardly
be avoided. Despite this built-in deficiency, Doty designed a wide variety
of visitor centers throughout the western region and consistently devised
creative ways of working on a tight budget. The three visitor centers
he dreaded to repeat only became problematic after additional demands
were made without sufficient means.

The Park Service began assessing the Mission 66 program immediately
after its completion and was assisted in this respect by the American
Institute of Architects, which awarded it the 1970 Citation of an Organization
for "its attempts to develop regional character in the visitor centers
and also for its continuing effort to provide excellent design at all
levels in our national parks." The AIA Journal focused on visitor
centers in "Our Park Service Serves Architecture Well," an article praising
individual buildings and the design methodology employed throughout
Mission 66. The section on the Park Service's criteria for good design
explained the rationale behind its choice of the modernist aesthetic
for park buildings: "Sometimes areas seem to cry for a design suggesting
traditional or regional style. However, to maintain regional or particularly
period architecture would result in oddly proportioned boxes covered
with pseudo-period gimcracks or reasonably well-proportioned structures
stuffed with nonfunctioning activities. The best attack is not to copy
styles but to use regional materials and echo forms if possible." [2]
Ten years later, in 1976, the Park Service celebrated the 20th anniversary
of the launching of Mission 66 with a report of its achievements first
in terms of the magnitude of construction, but finally as a program
boosting the conservation movement and inspiring the country to develop
long-range projects for natural and cultural resource preservation.
Park Service Modern architecture symbolized the agency's decision to
move forward and develop a broader, more enlightened understanding of
its responsibilities as stewards of the nation's parks, monuments and
historic sites. [3]

If Mission 66 architecture was novel for the Park Service, the elite
architectural profession had largely discounted the principle tenets
of modernist design by the late 1960s. The visitor centers featured
in this study are all considered modern, but they range from the work
of an architect born in 1889 and trained in International Style design,
to the early efforts of a firm that would define itself against the
abstractions of modernist methodology. The different approaches, philosophies,
and results achieved by these architects come together under the umbrella
Mission 66, or Park Service Modern, architecture. This decade of patronage
provided opportunities for little-known firms and for Park Service architects
to experiment with modern design in unique settings and situations.
Mission 66 was the last time the federal government championed a development
program of this type and at such a scale, and it was also the most socially
optimistic architectural effort of the day. In the context of American
architectural history, Mission 66 was both old-fashioned and refreshing.
The next two decades would bring architectural cynicism that dissolved
faith in modernist design.

Even as the Mission 66 program concluded, many architects were beginning
to reject modernism for its more colorful successor, postmodernism.
And as modernism has come to symbolize the failure to achieve social
transformation through design, the gleam of its early existence has
faded. Modern architecture in the parks has aged particularly poorly.
With limited funds from the beginning, park architects designed in a
style that requires constant maintenance. Unlike rustic structures,
which benefit from a patina of age and wear, modern buildings depend
on a crisp, clean aesthetic. A crumbling rustic wall is considered appropriately
antiquated, but a deteriorating gypsum panel only appears shabby. "Improvements"
are also more likely to damage the spare, modernist style. When smooth,
colored tile is covered with industrial carpet and wood paneling tacked
over window walls, a spacious, sunny lobby becomes dim and utilitarian.
The Park Service recognized the potential problems of maintaining "high
quality in aesthetic features" of Mission 66 visitor centers as early
as 1958. Lyle Bennett, supervisory architect of the WODC, criticized
the parks for the development of "cluttered, inharmonious or otherwise
detracting effects" caused by inappropriate interior decor and furnishings.
[4]

In analyzing the Mission 66 effort, it is not only important to consider
what was built, but what it was possible to build quickly and efficiently
during the 1950s and 1960s. Although comparisons between the Park Service
Rustic and Park Service Modern styles are tempting, it is more realistic
and historically accurate to think about Mission 66 architecture in
relation to changes in the architectural profession. The prohibitive
expenses of materials and labor after the war did not permit a return
to New Deal methods of construction. As Doty realized, "when the CCC
and all that labor ended, getting stone was out of the question." [5]
Mission 66 architects and planners approached the crisis from a practical
point of view and successfully solved the problem. Beginning in the
1950s, the Park Service realized that simple, contemporary facilities
would further its tradition of architectural excellence and represent
its forward-looking principles. Cheap imitations of the rustic style
would only serve as reminders of American society's loss of fine craftsmanship,
traditional materials, and regional identity. The Mission 66 program
was intended to memorialize its era's achievements greater accessibility,
more extensive services, and the convenience of standardization.

The construction of modern buildings in national parks was not a rash
decision, nor was it made by a handful of superintendents. Modernism
came into the parks with the blessing of its generation, and its inexpensive,
easily constructed buildings improved and expanded the Park System at
an unprecedented rate. The Mission 66 program standardized visitor services
in countless ways that we now take for granted, providing the basic
information, visitor facilities, and interpretive programs that remain
an essential part of all national parks. Today, our experience of national
parks is determined, to a great extent, by the visitor services established
around Mission 66 visitor centers. The visitor center is a part of our
national culture, not only within the national park system, but within
the National Forest Service, in communities eager to attract tourism,
and at private sites throughout the country. As a building type, the
visitor center may be the National Park Service's most significant contribution
to American architecture. The historical value of the original visitor
centers should not be underestimated. The Park Service and the public
once celebrated Mission 66 as a great achievement and may well look
back on it in these terms. If the current generation cannot always appreciate
the styles and choices of another era, it should have the foresight
to recognize potential historic value. As a leader in the preservation
of the nation's history, the Park Service is responsible for ensuring
that the best is left for future generations to judge.